From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Can Presidents "Fire" Senior Military Officers? Yes
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 20:26:52 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2025-02-28 20:24, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 19:43:21 -0800, Alan says...
>
>> Subject: Re: Can Presidents "Fire" Senior Military Officers? Yes
>> From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
>> can.politics, alt.politics.trump, alt.politics.liberalism,
>> alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican
>>
>> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Organization: A noiseless patient
>> Spider Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 19:43:21 -0800
>>
>> On 2025-02-28 19:40, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 16:59:29 -0800, Alan says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2025-02-28 16:46, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:04:50 -0800, Alan says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> A journalist recently asked me whether a President could
>>>>>>> "fire" a general. The answer - pardon the pun - is
>>>>>>> generally, yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except it was never about whether a president COULD fire
>>>>>> someone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ummm... yes. Yes, it was.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ummm... never? Never's a long time, AND it's retroactive.
>>>>
>>>> Ummmm... nope.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Trump Fires BLACK MAN, Replaces With WHITE MAN. No
>>>>> Surprise There....
>>>>>
>>>>> (as IF he wasn't allowed to)
>>>>
>>>> Learn what "infer" means versus "imply".
>>>
>>> Yeah, Lee implied Trump fired Brown, because he was Black and
>>> made it seem he didn't have the right, and again... as IF he
>>> wasn't allowed to.
>>
>> There was nothing in there--no implication whatsoever--about Trump
>> not being allowed to.
>
> Goddamn, you're stupid.
>
> Lee was implying that Trump shouldn't have fired Brown because he
> was Black, but if he was to, it should have been a Black to replace
> him, hence the "Trump Fires Black Man, Replaces With White Man. No
> Surprise There...."
"Shouldn't have" isn't the same as "not allowed to".
>
> He wasn't the only one.
>
> Subject: Trump Fires General For Being Black From: bks@panix.com
> (Bradley K. Sherman)
>
> THAT implies EXACTLY what I said... "you can't fire a Black man!"
>
> Ohhh... yeah, he can.
>
> What do YOU infer from this?
>
> "Trump Fires Black Man, Replaces With White Man. No Surprise
> There...."
>
> We KNOW Trump's not racist, so it HAS to be that wee wee wrangler
> thinks he shouldn't/couldn't fire him, BECAUSE he's Black.
>
> Again, faggot... you infer what you want, I don't care, but I will
> infer whatever the fuck I want.
But your inference doesn't define what he meant.
>
> You can't say that it's "wrong", because people can infer different
> meanings.
>
> PLONK!
Awwwwww...did I hurt your little pheewings again, Phil?